Specialist BAE146/AVRO RJ routes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Specialist BAE146/AVRO RJ routes
Hi there
I wonder if anyone could provide me with information on which airlines/routes the BAE146/Avro RJ is the only jet-aircraft able to operate.
The reason that I'm asking is that from what I am aware the 146 was designed to be a very capable aircraft for operations requiring a STOL capability, yet it seems that most of the major operators around the world have not operated it in this role i.e. Qantas, BACX, Air Wisconsin, Lufthansa etc.
So I'd just be interested to know of any examples of airlines/routes on which the 146/RJ is the only feasible a/c (not turbo-props) to operate. I think Druk Air in Bhutan is one example.
Thanks
GT
I wonder if anyone could provide me with information on which airlines/routes the BAE146/Avro RJ is the only jet-aircraft able to operate.
The reason that I'm asking is that from what I am aware the 146 was designed to be a very capable aircraft for operations requiring a STOL capability, yet it seems that most of the major operators around the world have not operated it in this role i.e. Qantas, BACX, Air Wisconsin, Lufthansa etc.
So I'd just be interested to know of any examples of airlines/routes on which the 146/RJ is the only feasible a/c (not turbo-props) to operate. I think Druk Air in Bhutan is one example.
Thanks
GT
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Uk / UAE
Age: 54
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George Tower - I think Druk Air in Bhutan is one example.
"Maybe the smallest national carrier in the world, Druk-Air has a fleet of two BAe-146 and two A319 aircrafts after the induction of Airbus A319 on 31st October 2004. An international flight crew and air hostesses trained by Thai Airways International give the airline its credibility and charm."
Taken from their website
"Maybe the smallest national carrier in the world, Druk-Air has a fleet of two BAe-146 and two A319 aircrafts after the induction of Airbus A319 on 31st October 2004. An international flight crew and air hostesses trained by Thai Airways International give the airline its credibility and charm."
Taken from their website
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that other jets can and do operate into LCY.
See here for full list:
http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/index.html
See here for full list:
http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/index.html
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Blairgowrie,Scotland
Age: 75
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon you guys should read the question again!
He's asking for routes where the 146/RJ is the ONLY feasible aircraft (think that does NOT include LCY then!)
He's asking for routes where the 146/RJ is the ONLY feasible aircraft (think that does NOT include LCY then!)
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He did say only feasible JET.
And the only other jet at the mo is the ERJ 135, which has only 30% of the ARJ or the F70 with 20 less seats. I imagine both also suffer engine out climb restrictions on hot/calm days that a 4 engine jet wont.
In answer to the question, i suspect that there is nowhere that another jet type couldnt get into. However to lift 100 pax out in any weather from a short/icy/terrain constrained field. The RJ is still where its at.
Chambery for example before the advent of NG 737's the RJ could always lift 110 pax off the runway whatever the wind direction, the 733/4 and 5 could too so long as the wind was ok, of it blew the wrong way they could take 30!
And the only other jet at the mo is the ERJ 135, which has only 30% of the ARJ or the F70 with 20 less seats. I imagine both also suffer engine out climb restrictions on hot/calm days that a 4 engine jet wont.
In answer to the question, i suspect that there is nowhere that another jet type couldnt get into. However to lift 100 pax out in any weather from a short/icy/terrain constrained field. The RJ is still where its at.
Chambery for example before the advent of NG 737's the RJ could always lift 110 pax off the runway whatever the wind direction, the 733/4 and 5 could too so long as the wind was ok, of it blew the wrong way they could take 30!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. I doubt the 135 is not restricted, they have enough trouble getting them out of SOU on a hot day. Same goes for the F70. The 146/RJ, on the other hand, could generally lift a full load of pax if the flight wasn't over 1.5 hours or so.
It is indeed true that if you can get a 146 in and out of an airport regularly and reliably with full commercial loads, you can pretty much get other types in there as well with some restriction.
Here at London City I remember the F70 on Air France to Paris. Noisy little thing, believe it was weight restricted as well. But it worked for a few years. Luxair's Embraer 135 seems to handle things better, judging entirely on an observers view of rate of climb (have not seen an engine-out departure though !). However, if it was such an appropriate choice others would be going for it as well.
Places where 146 seems to dominate: Faroe, Paro (Bhutan), Cocos Island (Indian Ocean), Aspen (Colorado).
Yes the 146-100 was originally designed as a short-field aircraft, but the larger versions diluted that, particularly the -300, identifying that most operations were not into such restricted places. Yet the -300 has operated well into London City with many operators.
The 146 did well in sales terms as for quite some time it had few competitors in its size as a 100 seat small jet, below the smallest the major manufacturers were building. Only when Embraer and Canadair started coming up with larger versions of their 50-seat jets did it get killed off. I guess the F100 was the nearest competitor.
And a recent thread here on PPRuNe discussed how even the 146 runs out of performance at London City on hot days and loads have to be restricted
In passing, looking at VC-10 performance achieved, I reckon you could just about get one into and out of LCY, without too much payload or fuel. Do you think the RAF could be persuaded to give it a try !
Here at London City I remember the F70 on Air France to Paris. Noisy little thing, believe it was weight restricted as well. But it worked for a few years. Luxair's Embraer 135 seems to handle things better, judging entirely on an observers view of rate of climb (have not seen an engine-out departure though !). However, if it was such an appropriate choice others would be going for it as well.
Places where 146 seems to dominate: Faroe, Paro (Bhutan), Cocos Island (Indian Ocean), Aspen (Colorado).
Yes the 146-100 was originally designed as a short-field aircraft, but the larger versions diluted that, particularly the -300, identifying that most operations were not into such restricted places. Yet the -300 has operated well into London City with many operators.
The 146 did well in sales terms as for quite some time it had few competitors in its size as a 100 seat small jet, below the smallest the major manufacturers were building. Only when Embraer and Canadair started coming up with larger versions of their 50-seat jets did it get killed off. I guess the F100 was the nearest competitor.
And a recent thread here on PPRuNe discussed how even the 146 runs out of performance at London City on hot days and loads have to be restricted
In passing, looking at VC-10 performance achieved, I reckon you could just about get one into and out of LCY, without too much payload or fuel. Do you think the RAF could be persuaded to give it a try !
